The HR ending makes way less sense, because it suggests Jensen is so miraculously persuasive that he can alter human history with one video broadcast. At least in DX1 you have different objectives and you make a material impact.

Cutter wrote on Nov 16, 2014, 18:35:I was looking forward to this game. I was all set to buy it for Xmas. This is going to cost them a metric shit ton of sales. What happens to the company if the vast majority of backers demand their money back? Company folds then there's no game at all. Fuck if some lawsuits don't roll out from this.

We need to keep a running tally on how often Cutter claims there will be a class action lawsuit over something on the internet.Guy loves his lawsuits.

In this case he might be very well right. This is a case of fraud and might very well end up in court.

Yeah, because America isn't the land of lawsuits. Jesus, why do you people not have that troll on ignore?

Probs the same reason they don't have you on ignore, even though you're literally an insane person.

Human Revolution was a pale imitation. It had the makings of a good Deus Ex game but they were drowned in cinematic crap, bad augmentation design, horrendous level design, and shitty writing. It was the studio's first game so we'll see what they do next time.

Similarly unimportant when it comes to moving the needle on sales was the traditional gaming press. Bailey said when he first arrived at Double Fine, one of his big misconceptions was that the press would have a huge impact on sales. Even with the company's Double Fine Presents publishing service, Bailey had expected that simply including these other games in Double Fine's press list would help them get a lot more traction and exposure, but that didn't pan out.

I was pretty caustic a week or so ago when I said GG was done with, and my post was deleted, but yeah, GG is dead. It achieved nothing but to reinforce the wider perception that gamers are pathetic social outliers, so gg to GG for that.

If you think GG still has any value, you must live a very insular life in that echo chamber that Damion Schubert mentioned. The movement has been an utter failure.

Necrophob wrote on Nov 11, 2014, 12:23:Of course no AAA is going to come out pro-gamergate. That's just bad business. Let's just set aside the fact that it's the AAA's that have marginalized and objectified women in their games this whole time in the first place.

Ah, good to see you support Sarkeesian's video series where she examines this.

I've had this Blues account for 12 years and have been reading the site longer than that. But if it's easier for you to believe I'm only here because of Gamergate and therefore I'm not a true Blues reader so anything I say is invalid (note the parallels if you can), you can do that.

I'm just pointing out how everybody else sees you. Is there anybody saying "hmm those gamers raise some good points"? Nope. Even the people on your side like the Breitbart guy and that MRA website have previously dismissed games as toys for boys. You have no real allies in this.

If you want to ignore how Gamergate is actually being perceived outside of your subreddits and your multiple-of-4-chans, that's up to you. But you're not gonna get anywhere.

You can't claim victories on behalf of "Gamergate" (like getting companies to pull advertizing) but then disavow any responsibility for abuse done in the name of the movement. Gamergate has chosen a distributed model (or rather, has deliberately chosen to not form any organization or established leadership structures which would make them accountable for anything), so they have to own up to the practices that emerge from the model they've chosen, otherwise it means nothing.

If the abuse is coming from a bunch of dickheads on the internet, then the victories are also coming from a bunch of dickheads on the internet. So I guess that's all Gamergate is.

If you ask people to imagine a "gamer" in their minds, the vast majority of people will think of a young man or teenaged boy. That's the constructed identity people are talking about.* If you are a young man or teenaged boy it all looks totally fine and normal to you, and it's hard to imagine how in/exclusionary it might look to others.

You might think a "gamer" is anyone who plays games, but the thing is, "anyone who plays games" means, by default, people who are young and male. That's not the truth, it's the fictional identity that people have in their minds.

*This is precisely why the Gamergaters invented that young girl cartoon as their figurehead: because considering a "gamer" to be that is unusual.